Creating a Learning Network for Kingdom Builders!
Juanita said: At times, it seems almost unreal that women go in every day and end the lives of their babies. Legally. It is so brutal. And, again, it is legal. Unreal.
Dogs eat their puppies if they suspect the puppy is not healthy or if the living conditions are not safe. Sometimes if the mother is sick, she will eat the puppy out of fear she cannot care for it. This is an instinctive behavior.
Humans are not as instinctive as animals, however, humans tend to re-act to stressful situations more instinctively than thoughtfully. I have known many women who have had abortions who speak of their experience in this sense.
For some, it's a reaction to a stressful situation that was not thought-out. We must reach as many of these women as we can to help them deal with that stress in a thoughtful way before making a very bad decision that could cause years of emotional scars.
There are others who use abortion as a form of birth control because they do not understand that life has value. These women need us to show them how they are valuable, else how can they see life as valuable?
There is a HUGE opportunity here to show love to the un-saved. While it is very important to fight un-Godly laws, it is absolutely critical we are on the front line supporting in any way we can these women who are considering or have had abortions. Without Christ, death is certain. You can't save someone from certain death with a change in law. But we can possibly save 2 lives by showing Christ's Love.
RVW is murderous. Laws should protect lives, not allow for them to be taken. This goes for any law, not just RVW. No life is above the value of another life. No life can be taken to atone for or cover-up another person's sin.
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and
desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I'm pregnant again. I don't
want kids so close together.'
So the doctor said: 'Ok, and what do you want me to do?'
She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he
said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem.
It's less dangerous for you too.'
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept
Then he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time,
let's kill the one in your arms.
This way,you could rest some before
the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is.
There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.
The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!
'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.
The doctor smiled,realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the
womb. The crime is the same!
Wow, Ralph. Just.... Wow.
That was about as perfect, complete and concise a writ as I've seen on the subject of current progressive politics and religious values. You should blog this so it is easy to tweet. Brilliant - thanks for sharing. That was all those things I knew but couldn't form into words.
Wow Ralph is right, Lets do a little time traveling back in time.Not to far back,
As recently as 1994, less than half of Americans approved of mix race marriages.
Today more than three in four Americans (77%) say they approve of marriages between blacks and whites. Yea progress.
In 1869, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that:
"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity."
Then as now it is religion that is hurting this cause. Was not so in the past.
Catherine's monastery on Mount Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea initially seems shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St Serge and St Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple.
If ya'll truely want this country to have less abortions their is a working modle to follow.The county with the lowest abortion rate in the world is also the place with the lowest baby mortality rate and the least number of babies living in poverity. so it's a win win win!!!
The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world. To get there we need to copy this working plan.Free abortions Free birth control and sex ed for all every year starting in grade school.
Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained.
Politics is a lot like Hollywood. There are the critics, and then there are the moviegoers (the Box Office, called by the Hollywood-types "B.O." -- but that was before the recent presidential election).
Although the "critics" (in politics, the commentariat) are predominantly pro-gay marriage, the "moviegoers" (in politics, the voters) are almost uniformly opposed. (33 wins in 33 referenda!)
While the elite commentators are welcome to their own opinions, as pro-values activist Larry Cirignano once wittily noted, they are not welcome to their own facts.
All of the political facts confirm that the great majority of Americans -- the actual Voters! -- even in liberal jurisdictions like California -- are opposed to tampering with the classic definition of marriage.
A politician's ducking the opportunity to champion classic marriage is a clear vote loser. The spread between the victory margin on the marriage referenda and the presidential candidates who campaigned, if at all, only diffidently on traditional values, demonstrates this beyond doubt.
The claim that traditional values are a recipe for political loss is often repeated. It has to be repeated to persuade the gullible ... because it's preposterous. The data refute it. All the data!
But there is a much higher principle than political victories at stake.
Championing Classic Marriage over New Marriage (a la the Coke debacle, and we all know how that turned out!) is not demagogy. It is a matter of constitutional principle. I wish we would use the strong constitutional, civil libertarian, grounds that are ours. It's a winning argument for us, well founded in facts.
Let's go to first principles, shall we?
The First Amendment, which we all revere, is crystal clear that Congress (and, by incorporation, the States) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That's exactly what it says. Really! You could look it up!
The vast majority (arguably, all) orthodox Faiths consider homosexual relations to be sinful. To attempt to legislate (or adjudicate) that religious folk surrender their values and doctrines -- and prohibit them from advocating their values in the public square -- is a shocking violation of the First Amendment and of the core civil liberties that make America a great and free nation.
To claim that the Faithful cannot legitimately advocate for their values reduces religion to liturgy, ritual and real estate. These are merely faith's external trappings. Faith is so much more! Yet there are many who are trying to reduce the constitutional protections of religion to its mere formalities and externalities. That, undeniably, would cut out the heart of what it means to be Faithful -- the values!
I know no (and know of a very tiny number of) faithful Christians, and faithful Jews for that matter, who stand for the persecution of our gay brethren. I would never countenance persecution of gays.
Proponents of New Marriage may argue that religious doctrine is outmoded, or scientifically incorrect. That's fine and I'm happy to have that conversation. I have LOTS of gay friends, many of whom I deeply love, and I've always protected them from persecution. And always will.)
But to stigmatize the traditional position is NOT OK. Let's call it what it is: bigotry.
One cannot respectably argue that men and women of Faith are not legitimately entitled to constitutional protection of their faith, including their doctrine and the right to advocate militantly for its place in the civic order such as our laws! Tiptoe down that road and we'd have to decriminalize murder because ... it projects the Judaeo-Christian commandment "Thou shalt not kill." It's OK for our laws to reflect our values (all laws reflect values, it's impossible not to!). And it's OK -- more than OK, Constitutionally protected! -- for our values to be rooted in Faith.
Thus it is deeply troubling to see our elites attack as bigots and attempt to stigmatize those who are taking principled stand for their religious values.
Those who attack the faithful for living and advocating their religious values are the actual bigots here. In fact, the attacks appear to be going beyond mere bigotry to a new form of (sometimes but not always politely couched) religious persecution.
Our worthy adversaries would be well advised to take heed of a history that decisively demonstrates that the more the secular authorities (whether civic or governmental) persecute the Faithful, the more faithful the Faithful become and the more Faith flourishes.
So likely the attacks on the Faithful redound to the health of the Faith.
Yet ... woe to that man by whom the son of man is betrayed.
And ... Christians are loving and do not wish woe even upon their adversaries.